Loading...
09/24/1990 PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE A HEARING OFFICER (Blakely Appeal) Case No. 90-4263 September 24, 1990 - 1:00 p.m. Hearing Officer: Joyous D. Parrish Also Present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Dale K. and Janet R. Niemann, Petitioners John T. Blakely, Respondent Robert Moore, Ress Marine Construction Co. Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk Issue: John T. Blakely for variances of (1) 51.5 feet to allow dock length of 89 feet and (2) 12 feet to permit dock 8 feet from an extended side property line at 191 Devon Drive, Replat of Bayside, Lot 32 and part of Lot 33, zoned RS-8 (single family residential and AL/C (aquatic lands/coastal). Exhibits Submitted: By Appellant Niemann: 1. Photos 1-11 and Tide Table 2. Letters from Mr. and Mrs. George Cassell and Mrs. Rebecca B. Barker By Petitioner Blakely: 1. Photos 1-5 and 7-9 and Aerial 2. Letter from Mrs. Greta C. Bockmann 3. Original Photos from 6/14/90 Meeting The Hearing Officer, as part of the record designated this issue as Case No. 90-4263; the petitioners as Dale K. and Janet R. Niemann; and the respondents as John T. Blakely and the City of Clearwater. She accepted into evidence material submitted by the City via letter dated July 6, 1990, including notice of public hearing, minutes and tape of June 14, 1990, Development Code Adjustment Board meeting, variance application and transmittal and photographs. Mr. Blakely requested that the original photographs presented at the June 14, 1990, meeting be made part of the record and, at this time, were submitted into evidence. The Hearing Officer asked that the record reflect all witnesses had been sworn. Miles Lance stated, if the Development Code Adjustment Board's decision was based on substantial evidence in the record, and compliance with the essential requirements of the law has been met, their decision should be upheld. Dale K. Niemann stated the original photographs presented by Mr. Blakely at the June 14, 1990, meeting were not representative of normal low tides as they appear to be taken in May or June during which months the lowest tides of the year occur. He submitted photos 1-11 into evidence. He said photos 1 and 2, taken during August, were more representative of the low and high tides throughout the year. Mr. Blakely objected to Mr. Niemann's testimony stating he was not an expert in regard to tides. In response to a question, Mr. Niemann indicated he had taken the photos himself. At this time, a tide table was submitted into evidence by Mr. Niemann. He indicated photos 3-10 had been taken yesterday at the times indicated on the tide table. Mr. Niemann stated, while Mr. Blakely does have shallow water, others in the area experience the same phenomenon. He said photos 3-6 show his dock and the west and east sides of the Blakely dock taken at low tide, with deeper water on the east side. He indicated the silt buildup is due to the existence of a mangrove on the waterfront. Mr. Niemann felt Mr. Blakely was aware of this condition when he purchased the property. He said a non-cradle boat lift could be utilized without an extension of the existing dock. Mr. Blakely objected indicating Mr. Niemann is not an expert in regard to boat lifts. In response to the Hearing Officer's question, Mr. Niemann indicated he utilizes a davit boat lift. Discussion ensued in regard to the amount of weight an overhead lift would support; however, Mr. Blakely objected to this testimony as he felt Mr. Niemann was not qualified in this area. Referring to photos 5 and 6, Mr. Niemann indicated there is sufficient water depth at the end of Mr. Blakely's present dock at low tide. He indicated Mr. Blakely's 64 foot long dock is already 26.5 feet longer than stipulated by code. Since Mr. Blakely is currently operating his boat at this dock length, Mr. Niemann does not feel a hardship exists. Photos 7-9 depict Mr. Blakely's dock at high tide. Mr. Niemann said that for approximately 50 weeks a year, Mr. Blakely has sufficient water depth to operate his boat and during the other two weeks, he would be able to use his boat at mean or high tide. Photo 10 depicts Mr. Niemann's dock at high tide. Mr. Niemann indicated his view of the bay would be adversely obstructed by the proposed boathouse. Photo 11 depicts his present view of the bay and he indicated at mean tide the roof of the boathouse would be approximately 13 to 14 feet above the water. He noted, if the boat were placed perpendicular to the dock, it would be less obstructive to the view. He indicated his neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. George Cassell, are in objection to the variance and Mrs. Bockmann has mixed feelings on this issue. Referring to comments made at the June 14, 1990, Development Code Adjustment Board meeting, Mr. Niemann questioned whether any member of the Board had discussed this application with Mr. Blakely prior to the meeting and whether the Board acted in an impartial manner when rendering their decision. Referring to Niemann photo 11, Mr. Blakely asked Mr. Niemann if he could view the harborway through his French doors in the living room. Mr. Niemann indicated he did have a complete view of the waterway; however, he said the most appealing view of the open waters was from the rear. Mr. Blakely stated the firm of Ress Marine Company had been selected to install his boat lift. After conducting a number of studies, it was determined this was not possible as the water was too shallow at the end of the existing dock. An aerial showing the locations of the docks in the area, shaded to indicate the shallow areas, was submitted into evidence. Mr. Blakely indicated he and Mrs. Bockmann have a unique silting situation due to being located on the curve of a finger. Photos 1-5 and 7-9 and Exhibits A and B were submitted into evidence by Mr. Blakely. Photo 1 depicts the view westward from the existing Blakely dock taken at low tide at 9:00 a.m. today. Photo 2 depicts the Blakely, Niemann and Bockmann docks. Mr. Blakely indicated he measured a 26-inch water depth at the end of his dock at low tide. Photo 4 taken eastward from the Blakely dock shows the silt buildup extending to the end of the dock. Photo 5 shows the tree that primarily blocks the Niemann view to the east. Photo 7 depicts the Blakely house taken from his boat. He indicated two of his neighbors to the east have covered boat docks, photos 8 and 9. Exhibits A and B show the French doors at the Niemann house and an aerial view of the waterway. Mr. Blakely said all permits necessary to start dock construction have been obtained. He indicated the Department of Environmental Regulations (DNR) prefers extending a dock beyond the grass flats. Mr. Blakely indicated his neighbor to the east and Mrs. Bockmann do not object to the proposal. He said Mrs. Bockmann had thought the entire length of the dock was to be covered. He indicated Mr. and Mrs. Cassell objected because they were concerned a precedent would be set for longer docks. Mr. Blakely stated the covered boat lift was being requested for maintenance reasons (i.e. barnacles), mullet in the area landing in open boats, and protection against theft. He said the sun is damaging to an open boat, there are bird sanctuaries nearby and the shallow waterway at the end of his dock causes damage to boat motors. He said an overhead boat lift failed him twice due to the weight of his boat. Mr. Blakely said he never discussed his application prior to the June 14, 1990, meeting with any member of the Development Code Adjustment Board and felt it inappropriate for the Niemanns to say the Board was biased. Robert Moore, agent for Ress Marine Construction Company, was called as a witness by John Blakely. He stated Ress has been in business for over 40 years. He said he is familiar with the waters around Clearwater Beach. He indicated he conducted an investigation to determine what type of dock could be constructed for Mr. Blakely in accordance with City and County codes. He felt the pictures taken by the petitioners yesterday were ineffective due to strong winds making for abnormal tides. He said soundings had been taken through the silt and felt the drawing submitted with the application shows the most practical and possible way to construct this dock. Mr. Moore said this is a unique situation due to an extraordinary silting in this area. He presented a county aerial of the Blakely dock showing its location on the curve which causes the silting problem. He said a cradle lift is less massive and highly recommended by boat manufacturers. In response to a question, he indicated a cradle lift is far superior during high winds. The dock is proposed to be extended approximately 14 feet beyond the existing tie poles. Mr. Moore stated certain criteria of the county must be met before a permit is obtained. In response to a question, it was indicated a cable hoist could adequately lift 10,000 pounds in a residential environment; however, would be a massive structure. Mr. Blakely's boat was estimated to weigh about 6,500 pounds. Discussion ensued in regard to the location of the tie poles. In response to questions, Mr. Moore indicated the engineering studies conducted in determining the type of lift is part of the record, a roof is not required for any lift, an overhead lift cannot be installed at Mr. Blakely's present dock as it is not in accordance with Pinellas County Water Navigation Authority Regulations, Chapter 13, paragraph 13.4.7 "boat lifts to be constructed adjacent to the existing docking facilities must be located on the interior side of the docking facility." Discussion ensued in regard to the difference in construction between an overhead lift and a cradle lift, and in his opinion, Mr. Moore stated the cradle lift is economically and operationally the minimum necessary for Mr. Blakely to make reasonable use of his property in lifting his boat out of the water. In summary, Mr. Niemann stated a variance should not be granted to Mr. Blakely because he can and does operate his boat at his current dock, a covered boat house is not necessary to achieve reasonable use of his boat, an overhead lift can be installed at this dock and the granting of this variance violates the spirit of the code. Mrs. Niemann noted the neighbor's pine tree does not obscure their view. She indicated the neighbors not objecting to the variance are not affected by the request. She suggested locating the boat perpendicular to the dock. In summary, Mr. Blakely stated the Development Code Adjustment Board's decision should be upheld because county code requires the lift to be installed as proposed, the situation is unique due to the silting which causes the water to be shallow, it is the minimum necessary to have reasonable use of the property, there is no financial gain as this is residential property, it will not impair adequate light and ventilation to adjacent properties and it will not detract from the appearance of the community as there are two other covered boat lifts next door. The Hearing Officer advised any Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Orders must be submitted within 15 days of this hearing. The Hearing Officer stated today was the end of the receiving period for the evidence and there would be no supplement to the record. The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.